Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Florian Pflug wrote:
Attached is an updated version (v4).
I've attached a v5. No real code changes from Florian's version, just
some wording/style fixes and rework on the documentation.
I'm looking through this patch now. It looks mostly good, but I
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Florian Pflug wrote:
Attached is an updated version (v4).
I've attached a v5.
BTW, I discovered a rather nasty shortcoming of this patch on platforms
without ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY. It doesn't work, and what's worse, it
*looks* like it's working, because
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I've attached a v5. No real code changes from Florian's version, just
some wording/style fixes and rework on the documentation.
I've committed this with some editorialization. The main non-cosmetic
change was that I pulled the latency statistics
On Aug12, 2010, at 19:48 , Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Florian Pflug wrote:
Attached is an updated version (v4).
I've attached a v5. No real code changes from Florian's version, just
some wording/style fixes and rework on the documentation.
I'm looking
Tom Lane wrote:
It could be fixed with enough effort, by having the child threads pass
back their numbers through the child-to-parent pipes. I'm not
interested in doing that myself though.
That does seem an improvement with a very limited user base it's
applicable to. Probably the next
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org writes:
On Aug12, 2010, at 19:48 , Tom Lane wrote:
I'm looking through this patch now. It looks mostly good, but I am
wondering just exactly what is the rationale for adding comment
statements to the data structures, rather than ignoring them as before.
To be
Florian Pflug wrote:
Attached is an updated version (v4).
I've attached a v5. No real code changes from Florian's version, just
some wording/style fixes and rework on the documentation. The user side
is now consistent about calling these statement latencies for example,
even though the
On Aug4, 2010, at 13:58 , Florian Pflug wrote:
On Aug3, 2010, at 21:16 , Greg Smith wrote:
That was a leftover of the trimming and comment skipping logic, which my
patch moves to process_command.
I think there's still a trimming error here--line 195 of the new patch is
now removing the
On Aug3, 2010, at 21:16 , Greg Smith wrote:
That was a leftover of the trimming and comment skipping logic, which my
patch moves to process_command.
I think there's still a trimming error here--line 195 of the new patch is now
removing the declaration of i just before it sets it to zero?
Florian Pflug wrote:
I created the patch to tune the wal_writer for the synchronous_commit=off case
- the idea being that the COMMIT should be virtually instantaneous if the
wal_writer writes old wal buffers out fast enough.
As I was saying, being able to see the COMMIT times for purposes
Finally got around to taking a longer look at your patch, sorry about
the delay here. Patch itself seems to work on simple tests anyway (more
on the one suspect bit below). You didn't show what the output looks
like, so let's start with that because it is both kind of neat and not
what I
On Jul29, 2010, at 00:48 , Greg Smith wrote:
Finally got around to taking a longer look at your patch, sorry about the
delay here. Patch itself seems to work on simple tests anyway (more on the
one suspect bit below). You didn't show what the output looks like, so let's
start with that
On Jun 14, 2010, at 2:22 , Greg Smith wrote:
Florian Pflug wrote:
To be able to asses the performance characteristics of the different
wal-related options, I patched pgbench to show the average latency of each
individual statement. The idea is to be able to compare the latency of the
Florian Pflug wrote:
To be able to asses the performance characteristics of the different
wal-related options, I patched pgbench to show the average latency of each
individual statement. The idea is to be able to compare the latency of the
COMMIT with the ones of the other statements.
Hi
To be able to asses the performance characteristics of the different
wal-related options, I patched pgbench to show the average latency of each
individual statement. The idea is to be able to compare the latency of the
COMMIT with the ones of the other statements.
This patch adds two new
15 matches
Mail list logo
